Quoting Geert Uytterhoeven (2021-11-08 11:00:20) > Hi Jeff, > > On Sun, Nov 7, 2021 at 7:17 AM Jeff LaBundy <jeff@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 06, 2021 at 10:13:15AM +0000, Kieran Bingham wrote: > > > Quoting Dmitry Torokhov (2021-11-05 23:04:23) > > > > On Fri, Nov 05, 2021 at 12:00:37PM -0500, Jeff LaBundy wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Nov 05, 2021 at 10:35:07AM +0000, Kieran Bingham wrote: > > > > > > All existing SW input codes define an action which can be interpreted by > > > > > > a user environment to adapt to the condition of the switch. > > > > > > > > > > > > For example, switches to define the audio mute, will prevent audio > > > > > > playback, and switches to indicate lid and covers being closed may > > > > > > disable displays. > > > > > > > > > > > > Many evaluation platforms provide switches which can be connected to the > > > > > > input system but associating these to an action incorrectly could > > > > > > provide inconsistent end user experiences due to unmarked switch > > > > > > positions. > > > > > > > > > > > > Define two custom user defined switches allowing hardware descriptions > > > > > > to be created whereby the position of the switch is not interpreted as > > > > > > any standard condition that will affect a user experience. > > > > > > > > > > > > This allows wiring up custom generic switches in a way that will allow > > > > > > them to be read and processed, without incurring undesired or otherwise > > > > > > undocumented (by the hardware) 'default' behaviours. > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > > > Sigh, a compile test might have at least saved the buildbots the trouble > > > > > > of notifying me I also need to update the INPUT_DEVICE_ID_SW_MAX. But > > > > > > even so - I'm really looking for a discussion on the best ways to > > > > > > describe a non-defined switch in device tree. > > > > > > > > > > > > Here's a compiling v2 ;-) But the real questions are : > > > > > > > > > > > > - Should an existing feature switch be used for generic switches? > > > > > > - Should we even have a 'user' defined switch? > > > > > > - If we add user switches, how many? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is merely my opinion, but if a hardware switch does not have a defined > > > > > purpose, it does not seem necessary to represent it with an input device. > > > > > > > > Yes, exactly. For input core we are trying to avoid generic events with > > > > no defined meaning. > > > > > > That's understandable, particularly as I could then ponder - how do we > > > even define generic switches, and how many ;-) I wanted to discuss it > > > because otherwise these switches will be defined in DT as buttons. And > > > they are not buttons... > > > > > > > What are these switches? GPIOs? Maybe it would be better to use GPIO > > > > layer to test the state for them? > > > > > > They are physical slide switches on the board. But they have no defined > > > purpose by the hardware designer. The purpose would be defined by the > > > end user, as otherwise they are generic test switches. > > > > > > These have been previously handled as gpio-key buttons, for instance > > > key-1 to key-4 at [0] are actually four slides switches. > > > > > > [0] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=e3414b8c45afa5cdfb1ffd10f5334da3458c4aa5 > > > > > > What I'm trying to determine/promote is that they are not push buttons, > > > and shouldn't be described as such. I have posted [1] to add support for > > > these switches, but I am limited to chosing 'functions' which will have > > > an impact on the system... > > > > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20211025130457.935122-1-kieran.bingham+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > > > Presently in [1] I have chosen SW_LID and SW_DOCK as very arbitrary > > > functions for the switches. But my concern is that in doing so, the > > > SW_LID position could for instance suggest to a window environment or > > > power management system that the lid is closed, and the system should > > > be suspended (of course depending upon configurations). That would mean > > > that the board would now be potentially always heading into a suspend > > > after power up which would not be at all clear from the switch. > > > > > > I believe a 'switch' is the correct way to define this hardware, so that > > > both positions can be determined, and read, and events generated on > > > state change - but that there shouldn't be any artificially imposed side > > > effects from the description. > > > > > > If the answer is "no we can't have generic switches" then so be it, but > > > it feels wrong to further propogate the definition of these test > > > switches as keys. > > > > I agree that a slide switch tied to a GPIO is indeed a switch in terms of > > input core. Note, however, that definitions from your first example (such > > as KEY_1) are not any less generic; those have specific meanings too. > > But at least the KEY_* events are less likely to cause harmful side > effects than the SW_* events. I have no idea which daemon in e.g. a > generic Ubuntu userspace would act on the SW_* events. The fact that they are no-less generic is precisely another reason why I don't think these switches should be bound to KEY_0/N either. If the switch is in the 'on' position - then it will cause repeated key press events... as the key will be permanantly in the active state. Holding KEY_0 down isn't necessarily as harmful to the user as having the screen disabled, but I'm sure it would have a painful impact depending upon various key repeat delays and such of course. The examples defined in [0] are (IMO) wrong, and have been implemented incorrectly because of a lack of a generic test switch position. If we can come up with a solution, I think those definitions should be fixed up (if we're allowed to modify them now they exist? I expect so?). > > If the concern is that toggling a switch effects undesired behavior, such > > as turning a display on or off, then the switch should not be represented > > with a gpio-keys node in the first place. > > > > Stated another way, the fact that the GPIO are connected to something does > > not necessarily mean they need to be supported. Only once they map to some > > function should they be defined, in my opinion. > > Following the mantra "DT describes hardware, not software policy", I > think we should describe generic switches in DT, and perhaps have a way > to configure the actual event code from userspace (e.g. using sysfs?). > Without such configuration, perhaps they could emit a SW_* event with > the MSB set, so at least their state can be queried using e.g. evtest? The hardware exists, and it's permanantly wired this way, we 'just' need to describe it somehow... > Gr{oetje,eeting}s, > > Geert > > -- > Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But > when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. > -- Linus Torvalds
